Beyond Delegates and Monetised Politics

Postscript by Waziri Adio

The primaries of the two dominant parties, as expected, have served us generous portions of tragi-comic entertainment. And we are in for more concentrated political theatre, courtesy of the last-minute, six-day extension by the electoral management body. So, brace up for more suspense and, possibly, more shocks. As we move into the last segment and get ready for an unusually long campaign period, it is important to start teasing out the patterns and the lessons from the 2022 primaries.

Today, I will examine the narrative about delegates choosing candidates based on monetary inducement. This is an issue that calls for both reform and interrogation. It speaks to the undue and increasing monetisation of our politics and it limits the capacity of the prevailing order to deliver accountability and development to a country sorely in need of both.

This much should be clear: those who buy their way into elective offices will have incentive to do little else than recoup their investments with generous interests, then amass enough war-chest for the next elections. This trend thus disadvantages those of limited means and perpetuates the vicious cycle of corruption, patronage and underdevelopment. It inexorably impoverishes all of us. It needs to change. The question is how.

But before we get to the how, it is also important to interrogate the narratives around the trend. This will help us gain a full understanding of what we want to change, and assist in the design of appropriate strategies. The first thing is to acknowledge that inducing delegates (just like inducing voters) is not as new as it is being projected or as it now seems. It has been part of our electoral politics for some time, even if as a marginal practice.

However, it gained more prominence and traction about three decades ago during General Ibrahim Babangida’s endless transition programme. A major aspirant then popularised the Naira Burger, with the newly introduced N50 notes neatly embedded in loaves of bread. From there, the marginal practice moved mainstream: money burgers gave way to fat envelopes and Ghana-Must-Go bags, then to more portable, crisp dollar notes. It is one of the best kept open-secrets in political circles—for ages, election periods are seen as special harvest seasons for the magical transformation of the fortunes of delegates and sundry others involved in the process. 

A number of things have disproportionately raised the profile of delegates’ inducements in this electoral cycle. These include the reduction of the number of delegates due to Section 84 (8) of Electoral Act 2022 (which dramatically increases the amount available per delegate), and the presence of some deep-pockets and desperate aspirants who are ready to press both private and public resources in the service of their ambitions. Other factors include the attention drawn to the issue by some aspirants and the instantaneity of media coverage, especially on social media.

On account of the last factor, the space has been saturated with sometime hilarious stories of aspirants asking for refunds after being reportedly short-changed by delegates or actually getting their refunds through unorthodox means. Without the ubiquity of phone cameras and the ease with which images and videos can be shared, there wouldn’t have been credible evidence and most of the stories would have remained in the realm of rumours. The point is, money exchanging hands especially during indirect primaries, has always been there. It is possible that it is more prevalent or just more visible now than previously or the quantum of cash has spiralled. This doesn’t minimise the problem. My point here is to underscore its long root and different dimensions so that attempts at reform will stand a good chance.    

Most of the discussions on this issue have revolved around how greedy and untrustworthy the delegates are. There are many entertaining memes either warning us to fear delegates or showing delegates eating like gluttons. The delegates are by no means blameless but I think this slant takes attention away from and absolves the major actors in this saga: the aspirants themselves. The delegates only receive because the aspirants give. And the delegates receive much more because the aspirants are desperate to give much more. It is important to understand what is fuelling the desperation of the aspirants.

Despite what they say to the rest of us, all aspirants who junket around the country consulting delegates drop something, no matter how little and no matter whether they frame it as transport, accommodation and refreshment refunds or in any other innocuous way. So, anyone saying they are dropping out because of undue monetisation is either saying they have been priced out of the market that they also participated in or is indirectly saying that despite giving the little they have their prospect remains grim. Not that he or his camp never parted with money with actual or potential delegates or key stakeholders.

In our politics, you spend money not just when you call people for a meeting (and in which case it can be said that you have imposed a cost on them to meet with you) but also when you visit them. There is a cultural grey zone around gifting, and it is difficult to draw the line when it is just a harmless cultural practice or inducement. Any attempt at reform that doesn’t examine this sociological dimension is not likely to make much difference.

Another set of actors that are obscured from the current sole demonisation of the delegates is party chieftains who conduct the primaries, those who appoint them, and those who decide which election to uphold in case of parallel primaries. This set of actors decides which delegate list is used and who gets to see the list ahead. Let’s just say they don’t do it solely for God. Any talk of reform of monetisation of politics that excludes this set of actors is a non-starter.

Then to the contrarian view: I think money as a means of inducing delegates and voters is over-rated. While aspirants and their camps employ orthodox and unorthodox means to keep delegates committed to them away from temptation (including camping them and catering to all their needs, taking away their phones and even making them swear to oaths), our electoral history also shows that delegates do not always hop into bed with the patron offering the highest amount. There are instances of this even in the ongoing primaries. So, there are many other factors that can trump money. If an aspirant induces delegates and wins, he or she would most likely have won without it, except where the race is tight and inducement serves as the swing factor.

Even when they are allowed to receive ‘logistics’ from all aspirants, delegates are largely beholden to their godfathers. Yes, godfathers can also be swayed by ‘logistics’ but prior history and relationship with the aspirants as well as their own interests most often become the major determinants of whom they ask their delegates to vote for. Sometimes, other factors like rotational arrangements come into the mix. But most delegates (especially those who become delegates through someone’s goodwill) vote as directed by the godfathers or patrons. This is the structure of our politics that some people don’t like being talked about because they think it is possible to just wake up a few months to an election, say the right things, and wangle the required numbers.

Politics is played in context, and the reality here is that some individuals across the country have invested over time to be in control of the electoral structures in localities spread across the nooks and crannies of this complex country. So, someone with allies and associates in control of key electoral machines stands a higher chance of being elected than someone with just the most money to spend or someone who just appeals to only the educated, urban middle class.

Prising the system out of the hands of godfathers and patrons is an important and necessary task. But disrupting this status quo will require a long-term mindset and patient investment, not an episodic media and offline campaign close to an election. It is a long-distance race.

Explaining that the increasing monetisation of our politics is not new or that the issue is multi-dimensional or that money is not the sole determinant of delegates’ voting pattern does not mean that money-for-vote is not a problem or that it is a positive development or that it should be ignored. No. Neither does it mean that the practice should continue unchecked or that there is nothing that can be done about it. The point is the need to understand the history, the sociology and the ramifications of the challenge.  

As mentioned earlier, the problem is deep-seated and multi-dimensional. The approach to change must be deep-rooted and multi-fanged too. We need to reform not just the mode of selecting candidates or the way our political parties are organised and funded but also our politics in general and political-economy of state-society interactions.

To start with, aspirants are desperate to spend so much because they are sure they can easily recoup their investments when elected. So, we need to make public office much less attractive and erect more robust accountability mechanisms. We need to make it more difficult for those in public office to tamper with public resources and for them to pay dearly for it when they dip their hands in the till.  

When politics and public office are really about service and sacrifice and not just easy avenues for self-enrichment, the competition to get into public office will become less stiff and the desperation to spend so much to get elected will reduce. The delegates and the godfathers are only responding to the desperation of the aspirants and the aspirants are so desperate because they know that privatising the commonwealth is easy and carries little consequences.  

We need to take campaign finance more seriously and devise robust means of monitoring donations, and the movement and the disbursement of money, especially around election periods. INEC is saddled with this responsibility at the moment but it is clear that the electoral body is better off just focusing on conducting elections. This is an area that needs specialised intelligence assets and the resolve and the dexterity to frustrate and punish bad behaviour. Technology can also help not just in tracking campaign contributions and expenses but also in reducing unnecessary costs on voters that might warrant or justify inducement disguised as a refund.

But over and above everything else, we need a thorough-going reform of the patronage, predatory and prebendal culture that shapes social and political behaviours. This is not going to be addressed by scapegoating delegates or voters, or through moralising. We need to acknowledge the systemic and endemic nature of graft in our society and we need to devise specific, practical and sustained strategies for changing its various manifestations.